Is there a genetic element to hand-eye coordination (I'm sure the scientists on here would tell us)?
The game has changed too much in the last 100 years to ask how a certain batsman would have gone against bowlers from today. They way they batted, their techniques and method, were designed for getting the best possible output at the time, not trying to impress people who watched cricket in the 21st century. Sure, a lot of the so called great batsman from past eras probably wouldn't be great if they time traveled to now to face South Africa at Cape Town. But the same could be said if Warner and Watson were to go back to bat on a sticky wicket against Barnes and co in the 19th century.
RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014
The Wheel of Mediocrity | Compton, Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen, Hales | The wheel is forever
Founder and Grand Wizard of the CW Football Thread Statluminati. Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.
Do you think that the game has changed for the better though? Would you not apply the rules of the game from today's period even if the match was being played in the 19th century. In a hypothetical situation, would you not make the same assumptions such as ground staff, covers, etc.
Given we're already imagining a situation whereby someone born in the 1800s can face a bowler born in 1980s, with both players at their peaks, I don't think we really have to be too realistic. The purpose of those drafts is to have some fun building teams of players you think were quality across time; not to denigrate the greats of the past by pointing out that - gasp - after playing cricket for another hundred years we've started to get better at it, or on the flip side pretend that WG Grace fresh out of a time machine would force Compton out of the England side and slap around Dale Steyn.
You're right in that it's an all-time great draft; not a "who would have been great if they were sent to 2013" draft.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 26-01-2013 at 03:50 PM.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
At the end of an ATG Draft it is logical and coherent to assume that Watson's XI WILL BE playing against Cabinet's XI in a hypothetical Test match. Therefore we vote and decide who the winner of the Draft is according to which team is most likely to win in a head-to-head match up on a 'real' cricket field.
Perhaps we should set some parameters before the Draft starts so we are all on the 'same page'. For example; 'Scenario = To win an MCG Test match circa 1950s'
01. Victor Trumper 02. Warren Bardsley 03. Clem Hill 04. Charlie Macartney 05. Warwick Armstrong 06. Monty Noble 07. George Giffen 08. Hugh Trumble 09. Jack Blackham 10. Fred Spofforth 11. Ernie Jones
01. Jack Hobbs 02. WG Grace 03. Kumar Ranjitsinhji 04. Johnny Tyldesley 05. Frank Woolley 06. Stanley Jackson 07. Frank Foster 08. Arthur Lilley 09. George Lohmann 10. Tom Richardson 11. Sydney Barnes
Yeah AN would rather support a team of convicted criminals than actually be one.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
I prefer to just pick players based on how they faired in their era, and imagine they would fare similarly in all eras. That probably wouldn't be the case in real life, but I find it much easier to pick and vote for teams that way. I can see your thinking but if I was to vote for an XI based on how I think it would go against other XI's it would be very messy for me.
'Surely the object of selecting a team of cricketers is that they actually get to play a match against an opposing team of cricketers.'
BTW The parameter doesn't have to be 'sent to 2013'. The parameter can be set to any era prior to the Draft. I think that it should be stipulated so the Drafters understand which direction we are headed in. At the minute we all assume very different things which may or may not make the whole game more fun.
Err you do know that drafts are not actually real, right?
And again I agree with your term 'messy' as this sort of 'what if' thinking is always 'messy'. But I find it inherently more fun than a reductive approach where you choose a particular player based purely on his performance against his peers.
'Messy' is better.
Last edited by watson; 26-01-2013 at 04:24 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)